mojomarc wrote: Second, someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe teams get to keep all of their individual streaming package revenue. Since the Blazers will have a lot of games over the next several years that are not covered in national games, this presents a pretty amazing opportunity to go sell streaming services (the Jazz do this with Jazz+) to the Chinese market directly. .
I'm pretty sure, streaming revenue is pooled into league-wide BRI.
"No, individual NBA teams do not keep all streaming revenue; a large portion of it is pooled and shared across the league, with a significant portion of "basketball-related income" (BRI) going to players, while owners' revenue is determined by a revenue-sharing system and collective bargaining agreements. While local streaming and broadcasting deals can be a major source of revenue for individual teams, league-wide deals are shared, and a portion of all team-generated revenue is redistributed to ensure competitive balance among all 30 teams. "
selling streaming services to another country would be licensed by the NBA, not the Blazers. What teams keep individually is local broadcast and streaming revenue
mojomarc wrote: Second, someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe teams get to keep all of their individual streaming package revenue. Since the Blazers will have a lot of games over the next several years that are not covered in national games, this presents a pretty amazing opportunity to go sell streaming services (the Jazz do this with Jazz+) to the Chinese market directly. .
I'm pretty sure, streaming revenue is pooled into league-wide BRI.
"No, individual NBA teams do not keep all streaming revenue; a large portion of it is pooled and shared across the league, with a significant portion of "basketball-related income" (BRI) going to players, while owners' revenue is determined by a revenue-sharing system and collective bargaining agreements. While local streaming and broadcasting deals can be a major source of revenue for individual teams, league-wide deals are shared, and a portion of all team-generated revenue is redistributed to ensure competitive balance among all 30 teams. "
selling streaming services to another country would be licensed by the NBA, not the Blazers. What teams keep individually is local broadcast and streaming revenue
So the revenue, minus standard costs, is included in the BRI for cap calculations. But from what I can tell pure streaming (as opposed to local broadcast rights or regional sports networks) are not directly pooled for revenue sharing. But the income would be calculated to determine if you were on the giving or receiving end of revenue sharing.
And the NBA league-wide deals definitely are shared equally for national broadcasts. Couldn't find anything definitive but it sells logical the Tencent deal would follow the same pattern. But if course that wouldn't have 82 Blazers games (or, at least, my understanding is the Tencent deal is similar to TNT in that you get a handful of games per week). So that gets us back to Chinese who want to watch games would probably set up a VPN presence on Portland for the games, sign up as local, and that money would basically go to the Blazers. This is my understanding of how Jazz+ is accounted for.
But man, it is hard to find anything really definitive except for BRI calculation.
I would bet everyone posting in this forum are better at the X&Os of BB than I am. But I'll try.
The range of opinions for Hansens potential are extreme. From bust to all-star. My views fall in the middle.
I believe there is a path for Hansen to become a productive rotation player. He has the BBIQ and unique skills to make it happen. But.....
To make it happen would require a game plan and plays that feature his skills. The Blazers have two problems to overcome to make this work.
1) Does his style of play fit with the game plan and plays now in place? I do not believe they do.
2) Is creating a game plan and plays to make Hansen productive a high priority? For this season, I think not.
This season probably will be a limited chemistry experiment on Hansen. I do not expect much progress in his development.
Next off-season will be a complete team reset on so many levels. Starting with new ownership. Desicions on if and how to use Hansen will become serious then.
I.hope Hansen can weather a season of rudderless direction of his limited game minutes. And uses this season to adjust to the NBA, and, improve his individual skills.
mojomarc wrote: Second, someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe teams get to keep all of their individual streaming package revenue. Since the Blazers will have a lot of games over the next several years that are not covered in national games, this presents a pretty amazing opportunity to go sell streaming services (the Jazz do this with Jazz+) to the Chinese market directly. .
I'm pretty sure, streaming revenue is pooled into league-wide BRI.
"No, individual NBA teams do not keep all streaming revenue; a large portion of it is pooled and shared across the league, with a significant portion of "basketball-related income" (BRI) going to players, while owners' revenue is determined by a revenue-sharing system and collective bargaining agreements. While local streaming and broadcasting deals can be a major source of revenue for individual teams, league-wide deals are shared, and a portion of all team-generated revenue is redistributed to ensure competitive balance among all 30 teams. "
selling streaming services to another country would be licensed by the NBA, not the Blazers. What teams keep individually is local broadcast and streaming revenue
So the revenue, minus standard costs, is included in the BRI for cap calculations. But from what I can tell pure streaming (as opposed to local broadcast rights or regional sports networks) are not directly pooled for revenue sharing. But the income would be calculated to determine if you were on the giving or receiving end of revenue sharing.
And the NBA league-wide deals definitely are shared equally for national broadcasts. Couldn't find anything definitive but it sells logical the Tencent deal would follow the same pattern. But if course that wouldn't have 82 Blazers games (or, at least, my understanding is the Tencent deal is similar to TNT in that you get a handful of games per week). So that gets us back to Chinese who want to watch games would probably set up a VPN presence on Portland for the games, sign up as local, and that money would basically go to the Blazers. This is my understanding of how Jazz+ is accounted for.
But man, it is hard to find anything really definitive except for BRI calculation.
from what I read after the Blazers drafted Yang and Blazer fans had dreams of massive money flowing from China to Blazer HQ, any streaming and broadcast revenue from China for any licensed NBA game that initially went into Blazer accounts would be raked by the league and distributed to all 30 teams....after the league took their cut. That the NBA probably wasn't going to allow Portland some 'local' loophole label. I think the format is that the league owns 100% of any broadcast/streaming revenue form a foreign country
I don't believe that Dallas got any broadcast/streaming Germany bonus for Dirk or Slovenia bonus from Doncic; Milwaukee isn't getting a Greek bonus from Giannis; Denver isn't getting a Serbia bonus from Jokic
now, while the broadcast/streaming revenue may all go to the league, the Blazers CAN profit from partnerships with Chinese companies. That revenue would not be part of BRI. IIRC, the Rockets, after adding Yao Ming, generated several partnerships with Chinese companies that substantially increased their revenue which in turn accelerated the increase in their franchise value. Of course, Yao was a phenomenon in China before he came to the NBA. Yang, not so much
to be clear, there very well could be other forms of broadcast/streaming revenue Portland could get a bigger share of, but I don't know what they could be
